Dust by Zac Gillam
Mon, 13 Dec 2004, 11:21 amWalter Plinge10 posts in thread
Dust by Zac Gillam
Mon, 13 Dec 2004, 11:21 amDust by Zac Gillam- at the Blue Room Wed-Sat this week.
Being familiar with Zac Gillams work from the 2002 comedy “The Phantum” I was warned that his newest theatrical offering “Dust” was something quite different.
Sure, Zac leaves the spoof genre for a futuristic family drama in which there are no singalongs or dance routines, but his characteristic wit and talent for social commentary carry this dystopic forecast of AustraliaÂ’s future.
From the plays outset the audience comes face to face with a world where water shortage is extreme, gas masks an essential item and society is highly monitored, from food consumption to reproductive practices.
While there are some inconsistencies in ZacÂ’s imagined future, the actors commit themselves totally to the obstacles this world provides; the leaking air vents, the drug culture and other consequences of societies disintegration.
What makes this production impressive is its comprehensive use of design and media. The set is solid, complete with vid-screen and working extractor fan (although the inclusion of a screen door in a world covered by dust was somewhat perplexing). The Blue RoomÂ’s intimate main stage is used effectively in creating the settings required by the script; from doctors office to brothel to drug den to school room.
Another innovative inclusion is the plays assortment of voiceovers, which punctuate the intense action with more mundane aspects of life in 2070 and give some indication of worlds prior destruction. Peter Holland and Steven Lee are (not surprisingly) fantastic news readers and Tilly OzdolayÂ’s Gary Cruise is 1080 6ix of the future!
Ashleigh Greig as usual delivers a high standard of work with his soundscape, which, coupled with Ichina SasamoriÂ’s emotive lighting design, adds sensitivity to some of the plays more poignant moments.
This is an engaging piece of theatre that responds effectively to the worldÂ’s current political climate. It also presents relationships that are not only believable in a futuristic Sydney setting; they could just as easily exist in the familiar surroundings of Perth 2004.
Disclaimer: Yes, I am closley associated with a number of people in this production, however I suspect that serves to make me more critical of their work.
Being familiar with Zac Gillams work from the 2002 comedy “The Phantum” I was warned that his newest theatrical offering “Dust” was something quite different.
Sure, Zac leaves the spoof genre for a futuristic family drama in which there are no singalongs or dance routines, but his characteristic wit and talent for social commentary carry this dystopic forecast of AustraliaÂ’s future.
From the plays outset the audience comes face to face with a world where water shortage is extreme, gas masks an essential item and society is highly monitored, from food consumption to reproductive practices.
While there are some inconsistencies in ZacÂ’s imagined future, the actors commit themselves totally to the obstacles this world provides; the leaking air vents, the drug culture and other consequences of societies disintegration.
What makes this production impressive is its comprehensive use of design and media. The set is solid, complete with vid-screen and working extractor fan (although the inclusion of a screen door in a world covered by dust was somewhat perplexing). The Blue RoomÂ’s intimate main stage is used effectively in creating the settings required by the script; from doctors office to brothel to drug den to school room.
Another innovative inclusion is the plays assortment of voiceovers, which punctuate the intense action with more mundane aspects of life in 2070 and give some indication of worlds prior destruction. Peter Holland and Steven Lee are (not surprisingly) fantastic news readers and Tilly OzdolayÂ’s Gary Cruise is 1080 6ix of the future!
Ashleigh Greig as usual delivers a high standard of work with his soundscape, which, coupled with Ichina SasamoriÂ’s emotive lighting design, adds sensitivity to some of the plays more poignant moments.
This is an engaging piece of theatre that responds effectively to the worldÂ’s current political climate. It also presents relationships that are not only believable in a futuristic Sydney setting; they could just as easily exist in the familiar surroundings of Perth 2004.
Disclaimer: Yes, I am closley associated with a number of people in this production, however I suspect that serves to make me more critical of their work.
Re: Terra -ist
Mon, 20 Dec 2004, 07:24 pmGreg Ross wrote:
>
> a touch surprised that you appear to have misread my comment.
> I took issue only with the reviewer's statement that the war
> on terror was wrong.
Perhaps I DID misread, but my interpretation of, "Yes the United War against terror front is wrong but..." was not that the reviewer was stating an earnest opinion, but rather dismissing it with a yawn. I took them to be saying 'Yes, we get it, but..." to the playwright.
However, I didn't see the play, so as I said, I'm probably wrong. If so, sorry to start off on the wrong foot with you Greg. I was really more interested in the other statements you made.
> What would you advocate in dealing with the bastardry of
> terrorists? Sit back? Invite them in for a cup of coffee? As
> for redefining our world as we now it, what's wrong with
> that? There's a few things need changing, not the least of
> which, are thousands of years of wars.
Absolutely right...the world is worth redefining. In fact, it'll continue to be sad if we don't try.
But I'm still skeptical about how we define terrorists. And to tell you the truth, inviting them in for a cup of coffee would be a damn good first step. It's far too easy to label them as 'evil', 'satanic', 'criminally insane' and blame their gods, when the reality is that it's virtually always economic. And the USA as an economic plundering giant, combined with their god-given self-righteousness is an obvious catalyst for much world unrest.
That of course is a widely sweeping statement, but it's also a recognisable cliche so there must be some truth to it. Oil, wealth and maintaining political might have long been a basis of the US foreign policy, as well as the sideline advantage of selling arms.
Our nation's leaders regularly sit down to coffee with politicians ultimately responsible for murder and pillaging...we just don't call them terrorists.
> In terms of the droll comment from David Byrne, I'm afraid
> I'm in no position to argue with him - I'm not religious and
> unlike him, I have never been to Heaven.
I doubt David Byrne has been to heaven...I think his definition was deduced by pure clever logic. Mick Hucknell of Simply Red and Iva Davies in his solo career both agreed with him enough to release cover versions, and that's good enough for me.
If I have to come up with an alternative solution, I have to admit that I can't do it yet. But the key theme would be understanding what the terrorists think they have to gain, and maybe helping them find alternative ways to achieve those ideals. I daresay it would mean making their lives better and their economies less dependent on the US and it's buddies.
I'm pretty certain it would not include a great deal of self-righteous extermination.
Cheers,
Craig
>
> a touch surprised that you appear to have misread my comment.
> I took issue only with the reviewer's statement that the war
> on terror was wrong.
Perhaps I DID misread, but my interpretation of, "Yes the United War against terror front is wrong but..." was not that the reviewer was stating an earnest opinion, but rather dismissing it with a yawn. I took them to be saying 'Yes, we get it, but..." to the playwright.
However, I didn't see the play, so as I said, I'm probably wrong. If so, sorry to start off on the wrong foot with you Greg. I was really more interested in the other statements you made.
> What would you advocate in dealing with the bastardry of
> terrorists? Sit back? Invite them in for a cup of coffee? As
> for redefining our world as we now it, what's wrong with
> that? There's a few things need changing, not the least of
> which, are thousands of years of wars.
Absolutely right...the world is worth redefining. In fact, it'll continue to be sad if we don't try.
But I'm still skeptical about how we define terrorists. And to tell you the truth, inviting them in for a cup of coffee would be a damn good first step. It's far too easy to label them as 'evil', 'satanic', 'criminally insane' and blame their gods, when the reality is that it's virtually always economic. And the USA as an economic plundering giant, combined with their god-given self-righteousness is an obvious catalyst for much world unrest.
That of course is a widely sweeping statement, but it's also a recognisable cliche so there must be some truth to it. Oil, wealth and maintaining political might have long been a basis of the US foreign policy, as well as the sideline advantage of selling arms.
Our nation's leaders regularly sit down to coffee with politicians ultimately responsible for murder and pillaging...we just don't call them terrorists.
> In terms of the droll comment from David Byrne, I'm afraid
> I'm in no position to argue with him - I'm not religious and
> unlike him, I have never been to Heaven.
I doubt David Byrne has been to heaven...I think his definition was deduced by pure clever logic. Mick Hucknell of Simply Red and Iva Davies in his solo career both agreed with him enough to release cover versions, and that's good enough for me.
If I have to come up with an alternative solution, I have to admit that I can't do it yet. But the key theme would be understanding what the terrorists think they have to gain, and maybe helping them find alternative ways to achieve those ideals. I daresay it would mean making their lives better and their economies less dependent on the US and it's buddies.
I'm pretty certain it would not include a great deal of self-righteous extermination.
Cheers,
Craig
- ···
- ···
- ···